4

dianne carr

.."ECCAD on Granville Island. Don’t you
paint a pretty picture !|”
“Oh, we don’t paint-that’s just off the island
and two blocks west !”...

Okay-it’s a tired topic, right ? BUT when the
painting students moved, it made me (as
Johnathan Richman would put it) sAd. What's
more, it screwed up the concept of finally
unifying a group of art students.

You know what:
-It took the college long enough to get every-
one together under the same roof.
-UNITY IN DIVERSITY was the idea, maybe 2
Wow, all the different disciplines, yet there is
a SAMENESS in our differences. Boy, what a
concept !
-Having one communal space intensifies this
UNITY. Yup, it’s true !
-what? There’s no room for the painting
students 2
-Who’s idea was it to put us art students down
here on the island anyways, if there’s no
room for future growth 2!
-My, we do paint a pretty picture down here,
BUT who are we trying to look good for AND
must we look good at the expense of the
painting students.

| hear that the painting students are doing
well at their new studio, and | hear that they
have ample space etc... BUT | lose out be-

cause | can’t be affected, cont. page 12

a

U N

does the sum of the parts
still equal the whole

Pat B

violet finvers
w/ jane ford

Segregation is nothing new. Tracing ECCAD’s
history back to the Vancouver School of Art
reveals a cycling between fragmentation and
conglomeration. With the establishment of
the old art school, the lack of adequate facil-
ities required the dispersment of the institution
among several locations; for example, at one
time Gastown became home base for Paint-
ing, VVI for Photography and Media, and
Smythe Street for Design. The formation of
Emily Carr at Granville Island was intended
to bring all disciplines under one roof and to
establish a cohesive whole.

It is inevitable that with growth, the existing
space within the college be outgrown and
expansion or complete relocation be forth-
coming. In 1986, with increasing enrollment
and overcrowding, the unit was once again
fragmented and a splinter group of painters
was established at a Third Ave. studio. This
year, the process of fragmentation became
complete, there being no longer a painting
department within the physical structure of
ECCAD.

The effects of this move, the advantages and
disadvantages to students both directly and
indirectly involved, do not seem to be detri-
mental and in fact, seem to be of little signifi-
cance. Those directly affected, the painting
students are faced with the physical segrega-
tion from core facilities, primarily the Con-

course and Scott Galleries, cont. page 11